Re: The Shocking Paper Predicting the End of Democracy

"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups alt.astrology, alt.psychology, alt.society.liberalism, sac.politics, talk.politics.guns
Organization dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 29 Nov 2021, Tritek <[email protected]> posted some
news:[email protected]: 

> Democrats are too inbred to survive.  Like those stinking Jews.

Everything was unfolding as it usually does. The academics who gathered in 
Lisbon this summer for the International Society of Political 
Psychologists’ annual meeting had been politely listening for four days, 
nodding along as their peers took to the podium and delivered papers on 
everything from the explosion in conspiracy theories to the rise of 
authoritarianism.

Then, the mood changed. As one of the lions of the profession, 68-year-old 
Shawn Rosenberg, began delivering his paper, people in the crowd of about 
a hundred started shifting in their seats. They loudly whispered 
objections to their friends. Three women seated next to me near the back 
row grew so loud and heated I had difficulty hearing for a moment what 
Rosenberg was saying.

What caused the stir? Rosenberg, a professor at UC Irvine, was challenging 
a core assumption about America and the West. His theory? Democracy is 
devouring itself—his phrase — and it won’t last.

As much as President Donald Trump’s liberal critics might want to lay 
America’s ills at his door, Rosenberg says the president is not the cause 
of democracy’s fall—even if Trump’s successful anti-immigrant populist 
campaign may have been a symptom of democracy’s decline.

We’re to blame, said Rosenberg. As in “we the people.”

Democracy is hard work. And as society’s “elites”—experts and public 
figures who help those around them navigate the heavy responsibilities 
that come with self-rule—have increasingly been sidelined, citizens have 
proved ill equipped cognitively and emotionally to run a well-functioning 
democracy. As a consequence, the center has collapsed and millions of 
frustrated and angst-filled voters have turned in desperation to right-
wing populists.

His prediction? “In well-established democracies like the United States, 
democratic governance will continue its inexorable decline and will 
eventually fail.”

***

The last half of the 20th century was the golden age of democracy. In 
1945, according to one survey, there were just 12 democracies in the 
entire world. By the end of the century there were 87. But then came the 
great reversal: In the second decade of the 21st century, the shift to 
democracy rather suddenly and ominously stopped—and reversed.

Right-wing populist politicians have taken power or threatened to in 
Poland, Hungary, France, Britain, Italy, Brazil and the United States. As 
Rosenberg notes, “by some metrics, the right wing populist share of the 
popular vote in Europe overall has more than tripled from 4% in 1998 to 
approximately 13% in 2018.” In Germany, the right-wing populist vote 
increased even after the end of the Great Recession and after an influx of 
immigrants entering the country subsided.

A brief three decades after some had heralded the “end of history” it’s 
possible that it’s democracy that’s nearing the end. And it’s not just 
populist rabble-rousers who are saying this. So is one of the 
establishment’s pioneer social scientists, who’s daring to actually 
predict the end of democracy as we know it.

Rosenberg, who earned degrees at Yale, Oxford and Harvard, may be the 
social scientist for our time if events play out as he suggests they will. 
His theory is that over the next few decades, the number of large Western-
style democracies around the globe will continue to shrink, and those that 
remain will become shells of themselves. Taking democracy’s place, 
Rosenberg says, will be right-wing populist governments that offer voters 
simple answers to complicated questions.

And therein lies the core of his argument: Democracy is hard work and 
requires a lot from those who participate in it. It requires people to 
respect those with different views from theirs and people who don’t look 
like them. It asks citizens to be able to sift through large amounts of 
information and process the good from the bad, the true from the false. It 
requires thoughtfulness, discipline and logic.

Unfortunately, evolution did not favor the exercise of these qualities in 
the context of a modern mass democracy. Citing reams of psychological 
research, findings that by now have become more or less familiar, 
Rosenberg makes his case that human beings don’t think straight. Biases of 
various kinds skew our brains at the most fundamental level. For example, 
racism is easily triggered unconsciously in whites by a picture of a black 
man wearing a hoodie. We discount evidence when it doesn’t square up with 
our goals while we embrace information that confirms our biases. Sometimes 
hearing we’re wrong makes us double down. And so on and so forth.

Our brains, says Rosenberg, are proving fatal to modern democracy. Humans 
just aren’t built for it.

People have been saying for two millennia that democracy is unworkable, 
going back to Plato. The Founding Fathers were sufficiently worried that 
they left only one half of one branch of the federal government in the 
hands of the people. And yet for two centuries democracy in America more 
or less proceeded apace without blowing itself up.

So why is Rosenberg, who made his name back in the 1980s with a study that 
disturbingly showed that many voters select candidates on the basis of 
their looks, predicting the end of democracy now?

He has concluded that the reason for right-wing populists’ recent success 
is that “elites” are losing control of the institutions that have 
traditionally saved people from their most undemocratic impulses. When 
people are left to make political decisions on their own they drift toward 
the simple solutions right-wing populists worldwide offer: a deadly mix of 
xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism.

The elites, as Rosenberg defines them, are the people holding power at the 
top of the economic, political and intellectual pyramid who have “the 
motivation to support democratic culture and institutions and the power to 
do so effectively.” In their roles as senators, journalists, professors, 
judges and government administrators, to name a few, the elites have 
traditionally held sway over public discourse and U.S. institutions—and 
have in that role helped the populace understand the importance democratic 
values. But today that is changing. Thanks to social media and new 
technologies, anyone with access to the Internet can publish a blog and 
garner attention for their cause—even if it’s rooted in conspiracy and is 
based on a false claim, like the lie that Hillary Clinton was running a 
child sex ring from the basement of a Washington D.C. pizza parlor, which 
ended in a shooting.

While the elites formerly might have successfully squashed conspiracy 
theories and called out populists for their inconsistencies, today fewer 
and fewer citizens take the elites seriously. Now that people get their 
news from social media rather than from established newspapers or the old 
three TV news networks (ABC, CBS and NBC), fake news proliferates. It’s 
surmised that 10 million people saw on Facebook the false claim that Pope 
Francis came out in favor of Trump’s election in 2016. Living in a news 
bubble of their own making many undoubtedly believed it. (This was the 
most-shared news story on Facebook in the three months leading up to the 
2016 election, researchers report.)

The irony is that more democracy—ushered in by social media and the 
Internet, where information flows more freely than ever before—is what has 
unmoored our politics, and is leading us towards authoritarianism. 
Rosenberg argues that the elites have traditionally prevented society from 
becoming a totally unfettered democracy; their “oligarchic ‘democratic’ 
authority” or “democratic control” has until now kept the authoritarian 
impulses of the populace in check.

Compared with the harsh demands made by democracy, which requires a 
tolerance for compromise and diversity, right-wing populism is like cotton 
candy. Whereas democracy requires us to accept the fact that we have to 
share our country with people who think and look differently than we do, 
right-wing populism offers a quick sugar high. Forget political 
correctness. You can feel exactly the way you really want about people who 
belong to other tribes.

Right-wing populists don’t have to make much sense. They can 
simultaneously blame immigrants for taking jobs away from Americans while 
claiming that these same people are lazy layabouts sponging off welfare. 
All the populist followers care is that they now have an enemy to blame 
for their feelings of ennui.

And unlike democracy, which makes many demands, the populists make just 
one. They insist that people be loyal. Loyalty entails surrendering to the 
populist nationalist vision. But this is less a burden than an advantage. 
It’s easier to pledge allegiance to an authoritarian leader than to do the 
hard work of thinking for yourself demanded by democracy.

“In sum, the majority of Americans are generally unable to understand or 
value democratic culture, institutions, practices or citizenship in the 
manner required,” Rosenberg has concluded. “To the degree to which they 
are required to do so, they will interpret what is demanded of them in 
distorting and inadequate ways. As a result they will interact and 
communicate in ways that undermine the functioning of democratic 
institutions and the meaning of democratic practices and values.”

I should clarify that the loud whispers in the crowd in Lisbon weren’t a 
response to Rosenberg’s pessimism. This was after all a meeting of 
political psychologists—a group who focus on flaws in voters’ thinking and 
the violation of democratic norms. At the conference Ariel Malka reported 
evidence that conservatives are increasingly open to authoritarianism. 
Brian Shaffer related statistics showing that since Trump’s election 
teachers have noted a rise in bullying. Andreas Zick observed that racist 
crimes shot up dramatically in Germany after a million immigrants were 
allowed in.

What stirred the crowd was that Rosenberg has gone beyond pessimism into 
outright defeatism. What riled the crowd was that he’s seemingly embraced 
a kind of reverence for elitism no longer fashionable in the academy. When 
challenged on this front, he quickly insisted he didn’t mean to exempt 
himself from the claim that people suffer from cognitive and emotional 
limitations. He conceded that the psychological research shows everybody’s 
irrational, professors included! But it was unclear that he convinced the 
members of the audience he really meant it. And they apparently found this 
discomforting.

There were less discomforting moments in Lisbon. The convention gave an 
award to George Marcus, one of the founders of the discipline, who has 
dedicated his career to the optimistic theory that human beings by nature 
readjust their ideas to match the world as it is and not as they’d like it 
to be—just as democracy requires.

But this isn’t a moment for optimism, is it? What is happening around the 
world shows that the far-right is on the march. And when it comes to the 
U.S., the problem might be larger than one man. Liberals have been praying 
for the end of the Trump presidency, but if Rosenberg is right, democracy 
will remain under threat no matter who is in power.

<https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-
democracy-228045/>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.